“The saddest aspect of life right now,” wrote the late Isaac Asimov, “is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” In no branch of science is this mismatch more obvious than in evolutionary biology. Yesterday the Rev Professor Michael Reiss, a Royal Society scientist, suggested that creationism be treated as a “world view” in science education rather than as demonstrably unscientific. Discussing creationism in science classes, he argued, would make it less likely that children would ignore science.

Were Professor Reiss to have argued merely that schools should show respect for religious belief, his remarks would be correct and unexceptionable. And were he alone, his views might be counted an idiosyncracy. It is in arguing that creationism has a place in science lessons that the professor has made his error. And unfortunately he is not alone.

The issue he raises has now intervened in the US election campaign. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, while not a creationist, has courted the support of those who want to teach biblical creationism alongside evolution in science classes by saying that schools should “let kids debate both sides”.

Both Governor Palin's populism and Professor Reiss's well-meaning intervention are based on the same mistake - that it is acceptable to teach faith as if it were science.

In recent years, the doctrine of intelligent design has emerged, asserting that some aspects of the natural world are too complex to have developed by small changes over long periods, and are evidence, rather, of a divine intelligence at work.

Though it appropriates the language of science, intelligent design is not a scientific theory but a variant of creationism. It has no programme of research and has proposed no way by which its claims can be tested.

Next year marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Mountains of data have confirmed his theory of the evolution of living organisms by mutation and natural selection. There is much still to learn about the origin and development of mankind but science classes in school must start with evolution. As Ernst Mayr, the biologist, put it: “If you don't accept evolution, then most of the facts of biology just don't make sense.”

To argue that creationism has no place in science lessons is not to attack religion. Mainstream religion has made peace with Darwin, and there are religious believers among scientists. Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. Pope John Paul II declared that evolution was “more than just a hypothesis” and among the foremost debunkers of the pseudoscience of ID is Professor Kenneth Miller, an American biologist who is a devout Christian.

There is a strong democratic urge in a society encompassing diverse faiths to treat deeply held convictions with respect. Yet to consider creationism and its stepchild intelligent design as if they were science is to inflict an injustice on schoolchildren. Professor Reiss hopes that children from orthodox religious homes might find a new respect for science. It is more likely that they, and all the other children, will begin to wonder whether scientists have any confidence in themselves.

Natural selection is not one dogma to be counterposed against another: it is a theory of immense explanatory power. Science is a method of investigating the external world. And to have uncovered the mechanism of evolution is among the great achievements of critical inquiry.

Children should be taught about faith, and it is to be hoped they will learn respect for it. But in science classes? Please teach science.